PROXY

The substituted plaintiff successfully obtain an order for writ pending appeal.

In the main appeal the Respondent took up a preliminary objection that there was no proxy filed on behalf of the substituted Plaintiff in the District Court, and there was no proper application before Court to substitute him or even to represent him by an Attorney-at-Law. The substituted Plaintiff submitted that the failure to object in the original Court coupled with the subsequent filing of a proxy cured any defect which may have invalidated the proceedings.

The High Court of Appeal (Civil) Anuradhapura allowed the appeal on the ground that no valid proxy had been before the District Court on behalf of the substituted Plaintiff thereby rendering the judgment dated 02.02.2002 of the District Judge null and void.

Supreme Court held that

Even when an Attorney is incapable of appearing or making applications due to the total failure to file proxy, such default should not in any way affect the validity of the proceedings.

 

 

S. P. GUNATILAKE V. S. P. SUNLL EKANAYAKE CLICK ON THIS TO READ JUDGEMENT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

some selected